Jonathan Horowitz
@jonathanhorowi1.bsky.social
2.2K followers 270 following 1.1K posts
Sociology sometimes. Goal is to be the most boring poster on the internet. I can't believe I have to say this, but these views are mine alone.
Posts Media Videos Starter Packs
jonathanhorowi1.bsky.social
I remember being in a record store with a friend and he said "What do you think about Moby?" What I should have said was "I liked his Bond Theme remix" but instead I said "I think he has made a lot of money."
jonathanhorowi1.bsky.social
My friends were really into The Prodigy but I think I always preferred their contemporaries (e.g., Chemical Brothers, Basement Jaxx, Propellerheads, etc)
jonathanhorowi1.bsky.social
I haven't heard anyone reference that song in 20 years! I am old now.
Reposted by Jonathan Horowitz
sanderwagner.bsky.social
New article out in @sociusjournal.bsky.social.

It shows how closely linked motherhood penalties 🤰📉 and gender inequalities 👨‍💼💰👩‍💼 are by studying many local labour markets.

Thread 👇

journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/...
jonathanhorowi1.bsky.social
I don't have any clue whether he will win his lawsuit or not because I am not a lawyer, but they're not even doing a good job pretending he violated any policies. The logic they apply here works equally well for writing a nasty review of the latest Taylor Swift album.
jonathanhorowi1.bsky.social
This is how I found out I misspelled jus soli again. Again! I never get it right.
jonathanhorowi1.bsky.social
Even if you would want to live in a country that doesn't experience changes in ethnic composition (I don't!) and you could reconcile the ethics of it (I can't!) you still have to identify the the "in-group". At best, it would fail. At worst, it would succeed.
jonathanhorowi1.bsky.social
The other issue is that jus sanguinis without jus solis implies that there is an "in-group" (not officially but usually a de-facto ethnic group), that gets to be a part of a country and others are not given the same consideration. It's a way of limiting demographic change.
jonathanhorowi1.bsky.social
jus sanguinis is favored by countries that have diasporas and where it's a new country and you want to bring people in quickly. That described Germany (and I think Italy) pretty well at their founding. At some point it becomes much more illogical. jus solis is a blunt instrument but it is rational.
jonathanhorowi1.bsky.social
Unless you decide to just shut the doors entirely, this ranges from unfair (some immigration streams are more likely to get citizenship than others) to unworkable (you have to process a person when they are born anyway, doing it later is a mess).
jonathanhorowi1.bsky.social
After reading through it, I found it very hard to make the argument that jus sanguinis (right of blood) is a good or even ethical solution without jus solis (right of soil). Without jus solis you have to make decisions about every single person born in a country.
jonathanhorowi1.bsky.social
Several years ago I read--for reasons that are hard to explain--Citizenship and Nationhood in France and Germany. It's academic, so it's not an *easy* read but it's not especially hard either. It does a great job of breaking down jus solis vs jus sanguinis.
Reposted by Jonathan Horowitz
veryimportant.lawyer
working on a new unified theory of american reality i'm calling "everyone is twelve now"
Reposted by Jonathan Horowitz
joesimons.bsky.social
The guys who automated petard production: OMG! You're never going to guess what we've been hoisted by!
jonathanhorowi1.bsky.social
Check out "Number of people in household"
jonathanhorowi1.bsky.social
Not only can you pass on your genetics without having sex, and not only can you have sex and never have a kid, but the idea that you're removing people who are predisposed to being unhappy fundamentally misunderstands what causes unhappiness. And also, *why* these people are unhappy.
jonathanhorowi1.bsky.social
In fairness, the authors do not do this. Instead, the authors frame this in an equally crazy way: That not having sex will remove these sorts of people from the gene pool over time. And not that people who don't have sex are more unhappy because...they don't have sex.
jonathanhorowi1.bsky.social
I like how this post is framed so that never having sex leads you to do things like become more educated, and make you less likely to drink alcohol. Clearly this is all very causal.
pnas.org
A study of over 500,000 Brits and Australians finds that people who never have sex are more educated, less likely to use alcohol and smoke, more nervous, lonelier, and unhappier. Regions with high income inequality had more sexless residents. In PNAS: www.pnas.org/doi/abs/10.1...
Phenotypic associations of sexlessness with health, psychological, and behavioral outcomes.
jonathanhorowi1.bsky.social
RCTs work for medical research (if your sample composition is good enough, big "if") because by randomizing the individuals you are randomizing many contexts. But in behavioral and social science research the context is much broader than "your body" so its generalizability is always in question.
jonathanhorowi1.bsky.social
RCTs are as useful as the assumption that there aren't any other factors that interact with your treatment. Sample composition is a major confounder, but if people are experiencing the treatment in non-laboratory contexts any of those could also interact with the treatment.
Reposted by Jonathan Horowitz
csnrec.bsky.social
job

TENURE-TRACK ASSISTANT PROFESSOR POSITION IN HEALTH AND THE LIFE COURSE OR WORK AND THE ECONOMY

Department of Sociology, Western University

csn-rec.ca/job-postings...

@westernu.ca #cdnsoci
Reposted by Jonathan Horowitz
ceej.online
actress tilly norwood has been deleted after being found unconscious next to a script containing a mistyped wildcard. she was 0
jonathanhorowi1.bsky.social
When the people who create a graph call it a "visualization" it always looks something like this:
A Jackson Pollock painting